A ROMANTIC CASE.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 807, 23 January 1877, Page 2

A ROMANTIC CASE.

[By Telegraph ] {From a corrcsvondait of the Press.) Dunedin, January 22. The case of Thomas Robertson v David M. Ross and another, now being tried by Mr Justice William 3 and a special jury, is an extraordinary one, about which more is likely to be heard. Messrs Macassey and Stewart are for the plaintiffs, and Mr Stout and Mr Garrick, of Christchurch, are for the defendants. Mr Howorth appeared for Mrs Miller, another of the plaintiff's daughters. The leading facts are thus stated by Mr Macassey. The plaintiff, who is close upon eighty years old, brought thiaction against his son in-law to set aside a of conveyance dated in 1869, which dealt with property of considerable vaue, on the ground that tht execution was obtained by fraud. The cas< might possibly involve charges of forgery and perjury, but apart from its grave character it had a most romantic aspect, and the property at stake was probably not under the value of £BOOO. Mrs Ross, the codefendant and daughter of the plaintiff, he was willing to believe, had been the unhappy dupe of the craft of the defendant. The plaintiff had been a resident in the Anderson's Bay district a great number of years. He had been married three times, Rud had several children, who were married and tolerably well to do, but prior to the execution of this deed he had not conveyed any of his property to either of his children except by will. According to the present deed the plaintiff would appear to have conveyed all his fproperty, real and lersooa', to the defendants, and have left himself without in fact anything exsepting a life interest in the property said to be conveyed. Ross, the defendant, came to Otago from Scotland and shortly after his arrival here made proposals for the hand of Jane, the plaintiff's youngest daughter. The young couple were married on the 7th July, 1868, and for seven mouths resided in the house of Mrs Robertson. Some time after this Robertson, who had previously made his will, expressed his intention of making another one, altering the provisions of the former will. Ross, who is a man of superior understanding to the old man, and who had been well brought up, by degrees worked himself into Robertson'p confidence, and after a while the plaintiff put implicit confidence and trust in him He told Ross of his intention to alter his will, and said he was going to see Mr Downie Stewart, his lawyer, about it. He also said it was his purpose to devise hia property at Anderson's Bay to Mrs Ross, his youngest daughter, and that at Tomahawk to Mrs Miller, another of his children, the balance of the property to be disposed of in various ways. Upon Robertson saying he would get a lawyer to do the conveying for him, Ross offered his services to save expense, and the end of the matter was that the plaintiff brought the deeds to Ross and left the business in his hands. On the 13 th May, 1869, the day of the execution of deed it was sought to impeach, Rosa met Robertson in Dunedin, and said that everything was arranged, and all that remained was for them to go to some hotel and finish the business. The two forthwith adjourned to an hotel and there met one Harold, and Ross told him Robertson was going to make his will, and asked him to come and attest the s'gnature. The trio went into the h itel and Miller was called in to also attest the signing of the paper. The document was not read over to Robertson, and Miller at once demurred to signing a documentof the contents of which he was ignorant. However Robertson said—"lt is only my will" and MJier then affixed his attesting signature.

This will, as believed by Robertson to be, turned out to be a deed, conveying to Rosa and his wife the land in the Peninsula and Tomahawk districts, in short all the old man's property. A singular circumstance then transpired, Harold, one of the attestators, was afterwards asked to say that the deed had been executed at Anderson's Bay. He objected, but subsequently swore upon I affidavit that such was the case. Some time after this Robertson wishing to do some fencing on his land, discovered an encumbrance existed affecting his title. Ross, his son in-law, evidently endeavored to keep up the system of deception with Robertson, He asked the old man for an acre of land on the Peninsula for his wife to live on, as she was delicate, and a deed to that effect was executed, but never registered. When the plaintiff found out an incumbrance to his title he asked Ross how he had dared to meddle with his (Robertson's) property. He said he would make another will, but would give Ro s a chance of setting things right, and expressed a desire thst both of them should see the document. With this idea tbey impaired to the Glasgow Pie House, and Mrs Robertson hearing of the conference, placed herself in a convenient position and overheard all the conversation. Mrs Robertson heard Ross ask Robertson to sign a document, which he refused to do, and at last she could bear no more but rushed into the room and implored Mr Bughler, who was one of the par y toats l ain from taking part in the proceedings. A scene ensued, but eventually the two separated without doing any business. No effort was spared by Robertson to set himself right with his son-in-law, but in vain. He could not put Ross into the witness box, and ask him with any hope of getting a satisfactory answer why he left the employment of Park snd Curie, and beat a hasty retreat out of Ota,,'o, for the law did rot compel a man to criminate himself. The fact was, Robertson knew not where his son-in-law had run away io, until he received a letter from him dated from Auckland, and which pointed to some offence committed, and expressed a hope that the writer's name would be blotted out from the memories of the people of Otago. Ross was afterwards heard of at Timaru, whoie he had gone into business. One fact might throw a light on the case and explain how it was that Ross was able to drnw up the deeds ro correctly. It was this, that before his arrival here he bad been a notary public in Scot-

land, and had been trained in a lawyer's office. On the Bth March, 1870, another deed was said to have been executed by Robertson, ratifying the deed of 1869. Harold could say that he witnessed Robertson's signature to a paper covered, excepting the place for signing, with a blotting pad, and he believed the old man was under the impression, when he signed the latter paper, that he was merely giving the acre of land above mentioned, to Hose. The defendant in his examination, which lasted the greater part of the day, said that before the execution of the deed of 1869, it was understood that Mrs Miller was to get the Tomahawk block, and it was conveyed to him because Mrs Miller and her husband were not on good terms, and Robertson wished to get them separated. When the subsequent deed of gift t, O Mrs Miller was <aade the differences were made up. Frequent conversations had taken place between the defendant and several members of Robertson's family aa to the ultimate disposal of the property. When he left Messrs Park and Curie he conveyed to them his property in compensation for a deficiency in his caßh amounting, as was stated by accounts, to about £2OO. The property he conveyed he estimated to be worth £7OO. The deeds signed had been drafted by Mr Stamper and eagrossed by himself, as the plaintiff said he had a horror of solicitors, and would not go to one to have the deeds he wanted prepared. The witness denied having stated to Thomas Robertson, a son of the plaintiff, that he had " done " the old man now, but would make it all right with the family, after the old man was dead, and give him (the son) the Tomahawk property. He might have said to Mr Inglis that he would make it all right with the family, but that was only to get rid of him, as he (Inglis) came to him in such a mysterious manner, and endeavored tcipump him. Inglis had an eye to the ten acr# block on the top of the hill, and wanted ;to get him (witness) to promise him that the reason given by Robertson for the conveyance of the Tomahawk property to Mrs Miller was that he (Robertson) had made an oath to his wife (the mother of Mrs Miller) on her deathbed that Mrs Miller should have that property, but it was first conveyed to witness for the reason already stated, the ultimate conveyance of the property to Mrs Miller being left to the honor of the witness.